Even politics can't save SLS once commercial vehicles prove they can exceed its capabilities. Right now it's easy to call the other vehicles paper rockets that will never fly, and drum up support for SLS as something that NASA needs. Much harder to do that with other vehicles flying.

I disagree. Politics can't save the SLS if there is public uproar or the districts with SLS jobs lose their advocates in Congress. Now, the savings (if they materialize) could force an uproar...

B. that's not how federal funding works. If Congress cancels a project, that money isn't redistributed, it's just gone.

That's not the case for NASA, Congress cancelled Shuttle and Constellation, but the money isn't gone. True a lot of the money went back to the same contractors in the disguise of SLS/Orion, but a significant portion of the old money now goes to commercial space. Constellation supporters didn't mind big cancellation when they try to ditch ISS into the ocean in 2015, now they're worried money would be gone if SLS got cancelled? Nice try but no dice.

Rocket Science is hard, I guess - that's why they call it Rocket Science. But I too admit some pauzzlement as to why some of their aspirations are taking so long.

There is no incentive to start earning money. So there is no "rush" to get things flying.Remember, Blue Origin is Bezos' personal hobby. It is fully funded from his personal wealth. At the current funding level ($1 billion per year) he can continue to do so for at least another two decades.

And where Elon has set a goal of "retiring on Mars" Jeff has no such goal. So, no pressure there either.

SLS maiden launch slips to 2020. That's three years to the right, at a cost of about $7 billion. For comparative purposes, NASA could buy nearly 80 Falcon Heavy launches for that price. SpaceX might even give 'em a bulk discount.

Logged

You want to be inspired by things. You want to wake up in the morning and think the future is going to be great. That's what being a spacefaring civilization is all about. It's about believing in the future and believing the future will be better than the past. And I can't think of anything more exciting than being out there among the stars.

SLS maiden launch slips to 2020. That's three years to the right, at a cost of about $7 billion. For comparative purposes, NASA could buy nearly 80 Falcon Heavy launches for that price. SpaceX might even give 'em a bulk discount.

Yes, I think so.

If Wikipedia is correct, the SLS has more than double the payload capacity to LEO. Falcon Heavy does not compete in lift capacity.

SLS maiden launch slips to 2020. That's three years to the right, at a cost of about $7 billion. For comparative purposes, NASA could buy nearly 80 Falcon Heavy launches for that price. SpaceX might even give 'em a bulk discount.

Yes, I think so.

If Wikipedia is correct, the SLS has more than double the payload capacity to LEO. Falcon Heavy does not compete in lift capacity.

Imagine NASA purchasing 5 FH launches for $500mln and spending the remaining $6.5bn on payloads for them. They could fund and launch 5 missions in the Cassini/New Horizon/Juno class just from the current budget.

You want to be inspired by things. You want to wake up in the morning and think the future is going to be great. That's what being a spacefaring civilization is all about. It's about believing in the future and believing the future will be better than the past. And I can't think of anything more exciting than being out there among the stars.

SLS maiden launch slips to 2020. That's three years to the right, at a cost of about $7 billion. For comparative purposes, NASA could buy nearly 80 Falcon Heavy launches for that price. SpaceX might even give 'em a bulk discount.

Yes, I think so.

If Wikipedia is correct, the SLS has more than double the payload capacity to LEO. Falcon Heavy does not compete in lift capacity.

Imagine NASA purchasing 5 FH launches for $500mln and spending the remaining $6.5bn on payloads for them. They could fund and launch 5 missions in the Cassini/New Horizon/Juno class just from the current budget.

If I'm putting people on a round trip to Mars, I want to do that with as few launches as possible. Launches are risky, and I like as few risks as possible. Especially in human spaceflight. I'd go with the SLS.

And it's not a very fair comparison to compare the entire development cost of the SLS to the speculative per launch cost of the Falcon Heavy.

The SLS and Falcon Heavy are different rockets with different missions. The SLS has a much more ambitious objective. Putting people on a round trip to Mars. I don't expect their cost to compare.

You want to be inspired by things. You want to wake up in the morning and think the future is going to be great. That's what being a spacefaring civilization is all about. It's about believing in the future and believing the future will be better than the past. And I can't think of anything more exciting than being out there among the stars.

SLS maiden launch slips to 2020. That's three years to the right, at a cost of about $7 billion. For comparative purposes, NASA could buy nearly 80 Falcon Heavy launches for that price. SpaceX might even give 'em a bulk discount.

Yes, I think so.

If Wikipedia is correct, the SLS has more than double the payload capacity to LEO. Falcon Heavy does not compete in lift capacity.

Tell me... When was the last time there was a 130 MT payload ready for SLS. Or a 105 MT payload? Or a 70 MT payload?

The answer is never.

Even the proposed DSG is being constructed of multiple chunks that weigh in at 15 MT, per piece, at most. You don't need SLS to launch those pieces to the Moon, or even Mars. One clear indicator supporting this fact is that NASA is seriously looking at having a commercial vehicle (not SLS) launch the Power & Propulsion Element of DSG to lunar orbit. In stead of SLS.

If I'm putting people on a round trip to Mars, I want to do that with as few launches as possible. Launches are risky, and I like as few risks as possible. Especially in human spaceflight. I'd go with the SLS.

FH can put 34 tonnes to TMI with one crewed launch, the same mass as SLS. It only requires one additional uncrewed launch, which adds basically no risk to the crew.

FH will actually have a meaningful flight rate, so its reliability can be established. SLS will not have such a flight rate, and is planned to make it's first all-up flight with crew, which is very risky.

SLS maiden launch slips to 2020. That's three years to the right, at a cost of about $7 billion. For comparative purposes, NASA could buy nearly 80 Falcon Heavy launches for that price. SpaceX might even give 'em a bulk discount.

Yes, I think so.

If Wikipedia is correct, the SLS has more than double the payload capacity to LEO. Falcon Heavy does not compete in lift capacity.

Tell me... When was the last time there was a 130 MT payload ready for SLS. Or a 105 MT payload? Or a 70 MT payload?

The answer is never.

What does that mean? We have delays in development? So what? Falcon Heavy was 5 years late. Welcome to the space business.

You want to be inspired by things. You want to wake up in the morning and think the future is going to be great. That's what being a spacefaring civilization is all about. It's about believing in the future and believing the future will be better than the past. And I can't think of anything more exciting than being out there among the stars.

You want to be inspired by things. You want to wake up in the morning and think the future is going to be great. That's what being a spacefaring civilization is all about. It's about believing in the future and believing the future will be better than the past. And I can't think of anything more exciting than being out there among the stars.